Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNOME-PPP


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wvdial.  MBisanz  talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GNOME-PPP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not an obviously notable bit of software. I declined a WP:CSD and decided a redirect to Wvdial would be a compromise, but was reverted. Bringing discussion here to see what other options we've got. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As kppp has a separate article, then GNOME-PPP should also. So deleting this article is a vandal POV. Fsfolks (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * kppp has also been nominated for deletion here for the same reason. Personally I think we should have fewer good articles on this topic area, rather than lots of stubby ones - that would be better for the reader wouldn't you think? The term "vandal POV" makes no sense, different people have different views and life would be incredibly dull if we all had the same opinions. Also, vandalism has a very specific term on Wikipedia - it means deliberately making the encyclopedia worse. Like this, for example. Having a different viewpoint to somebody else and enforcing it aggressively can certainly be disruptive, but it's not vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that this is a good idea, since the WvDial article will not be enough to contain all detailed infos about kppp and GNOME-PPP. Fsfolks (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wvdial Thanks Ritchie333 and Fsfolks. I would like to apologise first for applying the incorrect tag to the article. That being said, I cannot see much of a reasoning keeping the pages. As of right now, I cannot see how merging content from the two articles to Wvdial would cause much of a trouble. In addition, I do not believe the article meet WP:NSOFT. While I acknowledge the presence of the review at http://www.osnews.com/story/7253/Quick_Review_Introduction_to_Gnome-PPP, it would appear to me that it failed to assert GNOME-PPP as being significant in its particular field. The article also failed to claim importance in its content. If you have further details to add for GNOME-PPP and kppp, you are welcomed to add them to the articles and expand them. If further references are added then obviously it would help to convince people that this software is indeed notable. - Andrew Y talk 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete. Articles about non-notable end-user front-ends belong on blogs or Wikia.  I'm really dubious the notability of a lot of these Linux software articles, as most of them are just manuals.  But I'll go along with a redirect for the sake of consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.